Sterba libertarian critique

[wilderness]

@liberty student

@wilderness

I’m not in with the tl;dr crowd. Who cares how long the post is.

Generally I do. It’s hard to follow a single post that addresses pages of discussion between at least 5 parties.

I also prefer people quote, because when you refer to the entire discussion, it’s nearly impossible to go back and find specific statements and their context.

I don’t agree with the slippery slope fallacy being important at all, but I also don’t have the energy to go back and look for where I brought it up.

Also, I believe Danny has a collectivist position, I don’t believe he is a communist. He has taken a position of nihilism.

Anyway, Wings are on I believe. I too have plans this evening.

I can when a long post gets difficult to follow, I do skip those, but I think only the poster loses out on providing their opinion. We may too if the poster really had something awesome to contribute and it didn’t come across in the forum very well. I see it as the market place. Some work, some don’t, so we try, try, again.

I definitely prefer people quote. I go line by line. Any questions another poster asks me, I always answer those questions. I never skip questions. It’s very helpful to answer questions so we all can learn. It’s also very important to discuss sentence by sentence sometimes to have a truly good conversation. I don’t like to read a post and then surmise a general idea to come back with only. I like to go point by point, sentence by sentence so I don’t miss anything they are saying and they don’t miss how I perceive what they are saying line by line. Communication is key with me.

I’m quite not sure of the difference between a collectivist and a communist unless the former means voluntary and the latter means coercion. I’ve seen his nihilist position come up at times as well.

I really just want the State to go away and everybody live more cooperatively, but I guess that’s hard.

Nice slow down post to interject upon. It was a good change of pace. Thanks.

[primer]

@liberty student

Mercantilist does a heroic job commenting on other people’s blogs. He has his own blog but I usually read him on NoThirdSolution or Polycentric Order taking his own unique position.

Thanks. I didn’t know you read my comments.

@Juan

I don’t oppose materialism. I only point out that it doesn’t account for moral phenomena so it’s irrelevant when discussing moral phenomena. … What I oppose is scientism. And in general I oppose people invoking “science” when trying to make philosophical points

We should not mix ethics with biology? I thought that ethics depends on “natural law” or “human nature,” terms which refer to biological abstractions.

@Juan

… for instance invoking things like the so called Copenhagen interpretation of QM to ‘prove’ that common sense/logic don’t always apply [emphasis mine] or somesuch.

I have trouble understanding what you mean by “logic.” Could you please define “logic”?

Does “logic” refer to the deduction of theorems from axioms? Do you use “logic” to refer to a broader method, such as “analytical reasoning” or “systematic reasoning”?

Unless you show me what you mean by “logic” here, I have trouble interpreting your claim that QM does not “disprove” “logic.”

@Laughing Man

Anarcho-Mercantilism?..I would like to hear how that one works

Anarcho-mercantilism (a form of free-market anarchism and individualist anarchism) refers to a social movement which advocates the abolition of all forms of aggression. Unlike Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-mercantilists oppose the means of violence and electoral politics to achieve a free society. Instead, they advocate education, secession, and counter-economics. Unlike some Hoppeans, anarcho-mercantilists advocate the freedom of movement. Anarcho-mercantilists support the right for anyone to immigrate to and emigrate from any region on the globe.

In ethics, anarcho-mercantilists reject Murray N. Rothbard’s elimination argument for “self-ownership,” Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s “argumentation ethics,” Stephan Kinsella’s “estoppel” argument, Ayn Rand’s derivation of “is” from “ought,” and Stefan Molyneux’s “Universally Preferable Behavior.” Although anarcho-mercantilists accept the validity of the performative contraction argument, they reject Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s “argumentation ethics” for its over-simplicity. In meta-ethics, anarcho-mercantilists reject the distinction between the “cognitivist” theories and the “non-cognitivist” ethical theories, the “objectivist” and the “subjectivist” ethical theories. Furthermore, anarcho-mercantilists reject the distinction between the three schools of normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics.

Anarcho-mercantilists believe in total informational freedom and oppose all forms of censorship, informational privacy “rights,” and publicity “rights.” They claim that such informational privacy “rights” only protect criminals (which includes the state), enhance groupthink, discourage group cohesiveness, encourages dishonesty and free riders, violates the freedom of thought, and contradicts with ethical individualism. Anarcho-mercantilists claim that most of the arguments for informational privacy “rights” rest on the flawed argument that employers would “discriminate” employees. To achieve total informational freedom, anarcho-mercantilists support the re-legalization of defamation, slander, libel, hate speech, blackmail, voyeurism, audio and video recording, eavesdropping, and the banned privacy-destroying technologies.

Anarcho-mercantilists oppose intellectual property “rights,” such as patents, copyright, trademarks, and anti-plagiarism laws. They maintain that, on consequentialist grounds, that intellectual property “rights” act like privileges and harm the general population.

[wilderness]

@tacoface

These scenarios are worse than useless without context.

That’s why I said BP was making statements. I wasn’t trying to be rude. Seriously. The debate turned into a controlled experiment in which only A can lead to B. So a scenario controlling the debate and what can be interjected into a debate - is - no longer a debate. It becomes a simple statement such as 1 +1 = 2. And of course 1+1 will only equal 2 cause the scenario is only allowing the " 1 " the " + " the " 1 " the " = " to be discussed, which can only lead to 2. It’s a poor scientific experiment that isn’t tested eventually within the variations of nature. Controlling a discussion (forcing only statements), and actively talking with context are two very different events. I agree with your point.

[Laughing_Man]

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Unlike Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-mercantilists oppose the means of violence and electoral politics to achieve a free society

I haven’t heard Rothbardians advoating the murder of government officials to achieve Anarchism. Do you perhaps mean revolution?

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Unlike some Hoppeans, anarcho-mercantilists advocate the freedom of movement. Anarcho-mercantilists support the right for anyone to immigrate to and emigrate from any region on the globe.

I too support this.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

In ethics, anarcho-mercantilists reject Murray N. Rothbard’s elimination argument for “self-ownership,” Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s “argumentation ethics,” Stephan Kinsella’s “estoppel” argument, Ayn Rand’s derivation of “is” from “ought,” and Stefan Molyneux’s “Universally Preferable Behavior.” Although anarcho-mercantilists accept the validity of the performative contraction argument, they reject Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s “argumentation ethics” for its over-simplicity. In meta-ethics, anarcho-mercantilists reject the distinction between the “cognitivist” theories and the “non-cognitivist” ethical theories, the “objectivist” and the “subjectivist” ethical theories. Furthermore, anarcho-mercantilists reject the distinction between the three schools of normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics.

Then what is your justification for individualism and private property?

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

audio and video recording, eavesdropping, and the banned privacy-destroying technologies.

This being enacted on the user’s private property correct?

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Anarcho-mercantilists oppose intellectual property “rights,” such as patents, copyright, trademarks, and anti-plagiarism laws. They maintain that, on consequentialist grounds, that intellectual property “rights” act like privileges and harm the general population.

I can understand patents and trademarks…but plagiarism?

[wilderness]

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Below, we will focus on the libertarian usage of “aggression.” Let us specify which actions constitute as “aggression.”

Does does the “non-aggression principle” allow “right to self-defense” or the “right to violently punish others”?

I’m going to go one by one on some of these before I read them all. So let’s see how this goes. I’m interjecting my opinion of course.

I think aggression is initiation of force, as you probably have heard of this definition before. So self-defense yes. I don’t think there is a “right to violently punish others”. Not sure how that’s a right in the first place.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Does the “non-aggression principle” allow trespassing or hate speech?

No trespassing due to aggression of a person’s extension - their property.

Has nothing to do with hate speech unless you means threats to coerce and that depends on more context.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

We will show that the term “aggression” is highly vague.

Some will define “aggression” as “the initiation of physical violence.” However, the term physical violence is also vague. Does “physical violence” include noise pollution?

It can since sound is physical. Context of course is needed. The virtue tolerance in a particular context can be productive.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Does it include perceived threats of violence?

depends as I mentioned

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Does “physical violence” include fraud? Whether noise pollution, threats of violence, and fraud are “physical violence” still begs the question.

Fraud can be a coercion to take something that you did not buy at least that’s how I see it, but I’m not very insightful, admittedly, in accounts of fraud.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Libertarians usually defend the right for broadcasters to homestead radio frequencies. However, if a malicious broadcaster “trespasses” another broadcaster’s radio frequency, can we label this as “physical violence”?

Sound waves are physical and measurable.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Obviously, the criminal changed nothing physical or tangible.

Those mentioned above are all physically studied by the physical sciences.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

However, I disagree with Liberty Student and Wilderness with their slippery slope fallacy from lifeboat situations.

I never saw a slippery slope anywhere in this scenario. What do you mean?

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Just because one may legitimately violate another’s property in extreme scenarios, this does not imply that one may legitimately violate all property in all scenarios.

I’m starting to wonder if people understand what justice really is. It really is a renewal of harmony. A ‘no harm, no foul’. Mercy is act of justice. It states nothing ever happened and Klemm is able to occupy the cabin if it is cold. I know people don’t like it when I refer back to Tom in this scenario, but I’m in real life and Tom does come back. Are we trying to make a law that Tom has to give mercy? I’ve asked this previously, but in the spirit of how some people reply back to posts they read the post, I assume, and then simply generalize back a comment. When I ask questions - well - I’m asking a question to whomever I’m responding to unless I otherwise say. I go line by line on people’s posts at times, except on this post Anarcho since we are as yet in a discussion so I’m pulling out the topics I find interesting to begin a conversation. This is a natural way to start a conversation I presume so I’m not doing anything that unique.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

As shown above, that rights can only be enforced if one realizes that there are good consequences in enforcing them, one would not enforce this situation on all property in all scenarios, as in full-blown communism.

Suppose Klemm is a libertarian. He knows the consequences of the collectivization of property, such as general decline of prosperity. Klemm would still violate property in extreme life-threatening scenarios, because he does not know the good consequences in enforcing property rights in this extreme situation. However, Klemm would not use the slippery slope fallacy to expand his infringement of Tom’s property in this lifeboat situation, to non-lifeboat situations. He would not advocate property infringement in non-lifeboat situations because he knows the good consequences of respecting property rights in non-lifeboat situations, such as general prosperity.

Ah, i see what you are saying about slippery slope fallacy now. I never really saw this as a slippery slope at all. I thought it was about Klemm and Tom only.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Liberty Student and Wilderness claim that there exist a certain degree of “vagueness” in the application of rights. Examples include the disputes in property boundaries, gray areas in the application of rights, and uncertainty whether if property damage actually occurred.

I think you have this mixed up. I never saw vagueness at all. Actually BP and Danny kept repeating that there was vagueness in property rights and they were trying to fix that vagueness. I on the other hand saw no need to fix anything.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

However, I see the conception of “rights” as very vague in itself.

You see vagueness, ok.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Therefore, it is a slippery slope to label Brainpolice and Danny as communists.

Maybe this is, but I wonder still. It simple become odd that Tom could never have a say. I’m referring to real life. They insisted on sticking to the decision to be made before Tom would know. I said if I were Klemm I probably would go into the cabin. I also said I hope Tom’s a nice guy. I would rather any Tom’s make virtuous decisions on their own without a society coercing a Tom to make moral decisions. It’s a good exercise and responsibility trait for any society to be able to make these calls as individuals. It only strengthens the moral fiber of society in my opinion instead of burying our own exercise of making moral decisions cause I believe in ‘use it or lose it’, meaning, if moral decisions are not used by individuals they lose it.

When BP who has said property does not come before a life, but then advocates and would even root for Klemm to aggress against Tom all for the occupancy of the cabin - I therefore wonder of his contradiction. If the cabin is not that important as a property issue and he claims life is foremost, then why are Klemm and Tom fighting over the cabin as one potential outcome? Why is this cabin so important? Cause shelter is an extension of a human in this world, so are our clothes, especially in cold snowy places. Without them we die to exposure so a cabin is the very life of Tom. This is what property is about.

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

I also have a problem with treating trespassing, murder, and theft as “equally immoral.” The motto “all rights are property rights” treats them that way. This is an over-simplification, just like how psychological egoism and argumentation ethics are over-simplifications.

All property is not the same.

thanks.

[primer]

@Laughing Man

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Unlike Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-mercantilists oppose the means of violence and electoral politics to achieve a free society

I haven’t heard Rothbardians advoating the murder of government officials to achieve Anarchism. Do you perhaps mean revolution?

Anarcho-mercantilists oppose the use of violence in the form retributive punishment against politicians and bureaucrats. Anarcho-mercantilists contend civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance as more efficient means to achieve a free society.

@Laughing Man

Then what is your justification for individualism and private property?

Anarcho-mercantilists consider the terms “private property” and “individualism” as highly vague. Therefore, anarcho-mercantilists decide to not use these words which they consider as glittering generalities: freedom, individualism, liberty, libertarianism, free market, laissez faire, individual rights, private property, and capitalism. Anarcho-mercantilists also contend the potential for these terms to turn corrupt over time: non-aggression, analytic philosophy, and methodological skepticism.

@Laughing Man

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

audio and video recording, eavesdropping, and the banned privacy-destroying technologies.

This being enacted on the user’s private property correct?

Like Rothbardians, anarcho-mercantilists allow the owner of his or her property to prohibit audio and video recording devices. However, anarcho-mercantilists support eavesdropping on wireless communications.

[Laughing_Man]

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Anarcho-mercantilists consider the terms “private property” and “individualism” as highly vague. Therefore, anarcho-mercantilists decide to not use these words which they consider as glittering generalities: freedom, individualism, liberty, libertarianism, free market, laissez faire, individual rights, private property, and capitalism. Anarcho-mercantilists also contend the potential for these terms to turn corrupt over time: non-aggression, analytic philosophy, and methodological skepticism.

Private property is vague? Individualism…ok I guess I can give you that one, it is a bit ambiguous.

[Juan]

@Anarcho Mercantilist

We should not mix ethics with biology ?

No, we should not because materialism (of which biology is a sub-branch so to speak) can’t explain moral phenomena.

I thought that ethics depends on “natural law” or “human nature,” terms which refer to biological abstractions.

Well, I beg to differ =] Natural law means, more or less, the legal system which is not created by government fiat. Human nature can mean different things, but in philosophical contexts human nature doesn’t have much to do with biology IMO. We’re not discussing whether humans are vegetables or mammals or have cold blood…or any other biological issue. Also, saying that ethics (which is a branch of philosophy) depends on natural law is obscure, whether you think natural law is a biological abstraction or a particular legal system. Legal systems are analyzed using ethics rather than ethics depending on a particular legal system.

I have trouble understanding what you mean by “logic.” Could you please define “logic” ?

Hmm, having taken a look at your profile and having seen that you “reject the law of identity, the law of the excluded middle, and the law of non-contradiction,” I don’t think I can define “logic” for you…

[JackCuyler]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@JackCuyler

I’m glad you agree that there are different degrees of immorality. It’s been something I’ve been saying throughout this thread. I’m not sure how you reach the conclusion that all property rights violations are equally immoral, though. Stealing a million dollars is different that stealing a car is different than stealing a jellybean.

You’re confusing what was taken with the act in-and-of-itself.

No, I’m really not. The act, “in-and-of-itself” is immoral. What was taken determines the degree of immorality.

[wilderness]

@Juan

@Anarcho Mercantilist

We should not mix ethics with biology ?

No, we should not because materialism (of which biology is a sub-branch so to speak) can’t explain moral phenomena.

@Anarcho Mercantilist

I thought that ethics depends on “natural law” or “human nature,” terms which refer to biological abstractions.

@Juan

Well, I beg to differ =] Natural law means, more or less, the legal system which is not created by government fiat.

Juan, no wonder we’ve had confused discussions before. Natural Law as I understand is referring to, well, Natural Law - all of it. This included the natural law of gravity and all other natural laws. (Note: In that first link I’m specifically referring to the physical laws of Natural Law). Also life, liberty, and property being advocated as universal are considered to be Natural Laws as well, natural laws of human nature (thus why animals are not given rights within this system of thought).

@Juan

Human nature can mean different things, but in philosophical contexts human nature doesn’t have much to do with biology IMO.

Human nature is devoted to all that encompasses well - human nature. Physics, biology, chemistry, society, intellect, fun, etc… Anything that is human is human nature. Of course physics, biology, chemistry can explore much about human nature (how high can a human jump, molecular proteins within the human body what do they do, etc…), as well as the school of Human Anatomy and Physiology are other sciences exploring the biology of humans.

@Juan

We’re not discussing whether humans are vegetables or mammals or have cold blood…or any other biological issue. Also, saying that ethics (which is a branch of philosophy) depends on natural law is obscure, whether you think natural law is a biological abstraction or a particular legal system. Legal systems are analyzed using ethics rather than ethics depending on a particular legal system.

I think I see what you’re saying here and I agree with a stipulation. That it is natural for humans to ethically consider. An amoralist would object of course, but I think it is natural but whether amoralist make it not a law (universal) I would disagree. I think it is universal that humans can think ethically.

[liberty_student]

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

@liberty student

Mercantilist does a heroic job commenting on other people’s blogs. He has his own blog but I usually read him on NoThirdSolution or Polycentric Order taking his own unique position.

Thanks. I didn’t know you read my comments.

Read the blog too sometimes. You last post was very good. I recently tried to sink my teeth into Organization Theory and after an hour and a half, I had enough. It’s almost unreadable as it is written with the ad hom style. I’m not sure who it is meant to appeal to, but I suspect that the target audience are either labour jihadists or the terminally dull.

[Nitroadict]

@liberty student

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

@liberty student

Mercantilist does a heroic job commenting on other people’s blogs. He has his own blog but I usually read him on NoThirdSolution or Polycentric Order taking his own unique position.

Thanks. I didn’t know you read my comments.

Read the blog too sometimes. You last post was very good. I recently tried to sink my teeth into Organization Theory and after an hour and a half, I had enough. It’s almost unreadable as it is written with the ad hom style. I’m not sure who it is meant to appeal to, but I suspect that the target audience are either labour jihadists or the terminally dull.

I thought the cover already implied the target audience

[Juan]

@wilderness

Natural Law as I understand is referring to, well, Natural Law - all of it. This included the natural law of gravity and all other natural laws.

Well, yes, agreed. The term can mean “the laws of nature” or the “laws of physical phenomena” or something along those lines. But “natural law” in political discussion has a more narrow meaning IMO. The meaning I’m using is the first to appear in the wikipedia’s link :

“law that exists independently of the positive law of a given political order,”

[Juan]

@wilderness

That it is natural for humans to ethically consider.

Yes, humans are, naturally, free moral agents. And again, I wouldn’t say that such key feature of human nature has much to do with biology. Rather the opposite.

[liberty_student]

@Nitroadict

I thought the cover already implied the target audience

In my foolish naivety, I thought it would probably be at least as good as the stuff I read on Libertarian Papers, and maybe as good as some of the things I read here on Mises. I don’t know why someone would go to so much trouble to write something that is very hard (and offensive) to read.

I will give it another try. Maybe.

[Jon_Irenicus]

What you advocated is psychological egoism. The problem that I have with psychological egoism is not the circularity of the argument, but because of its over-simplification. It is over-simplified because psychological egoism presupposes that humans have only one utility function to maximize: either the avoidance of pain or the expectation of pleasure. In reality, however, humans experience an array of different emotions and desires, and we cannot easily aggregate each and every emotion and desire into one single “utility function.” I reject the praxeological assumption of psychological egoism precisely because of this over-simplification of human psychology.

Except praxeology is not assuming a psychological principle and only deals with the satisfaction of wants and aversion to anything that deters this. So please make sure you know what you’re talking about. And no, psychological egoism does not assume humans only have one “utility function” to maximise (except in the most generic terms of “satisfying all my wants.”)

Actual satisfaction does not necessarily equal the expected reward. The appraised value of an emotion does not necessarily match the actual experience of the emotion. For instance, consider a parent sacrificing his or her life for his children. If the parent dies, he will not actually experience his expected reward for saving his children, but nevertheless expected that he will be rewarded when doing his or her sacrifice.

Which no Austrian denies (and which still counts as an attempt to satisfy one’s wants.)

Another example of this is the fear of death. Evolution has made humans to see death as something painful. But do we actually feel pain when we are actually dead? No. As said, the expectation of an emotion is not the same as the experience of the emotion itself.

Again, so what?

In addition, I reject the praxeological “means-end dichotomy.” Means are also ends and ends are also means. The means-end dichotomy is an unnecessary and arbitrary abstraction.

Also see this critique of the “means-end dichotomy.”

Summarise the arguments for it then, but it sounds spurious.

Hunger and thirst are emotions. The fear of death is another emotion. We cannot “suppress” these emotions with reason. Emotions are necessary for human survival and reproduction.

I can control whether I kill someone for a drink or whether I am patient and wait for it and so on. So you can regulate emotions at the very least, whether or not you can literally suppress (as in extirpate) them.

[Jon_Irenicus]

Or are you just going to deny that these people are valuing other things than their own life, that they’re just choosing the wrong means to preserve and enjoy it? Because if so, I think you’re going to have to present some sort of argument as to why life must, or at least always is, the ultimate ends as opposed to merely a means.

Sigh Because the enjoyment of these means requires life to begin with and has an impact of the kind of life you’re living. It’s simple, I do not see what there is not to comprehend except an insistence to the contrary.

Well, my valuing life doesn’t get you here. The fact that I value my life (and let us assume as an ultimate end) only gets you far enough to say that I should do whatever I can to live as long a life as possible.

No, it doesn’t and I am not sure how you inferred such a thing.

In which case I don’t see why Rand’s argument holds, or conversely, I could say that the argument does not hold because what I mean is that my values are maximising utility throughout society, in which case I’m not valuing my life as anything other than a means (nor, in this case, is utility only grounded in my life).

You can say whatever you bloody please, it doesn’t mean it’s true. What does it even mean to say I am acting to “maximise utility throughout society”? Why would I even do such a thing if I did not value it and consider it an additive to the value I place on my own life? Clearly, it’s nonsense.

Yes, but all you’ve demonstrated with this is that an individual may justify their action with reference to the happiness it brings them. You’ve not proven that it is moral to live a “happy” life, and I don’t think that’s done in TVOS, at best you could say that it’s proven that individuals should live a long a life as possible (funny, how this relates to the earlier discussion). So when you ask what would be morally praiseworthy about living like an animal, the answer would be “nothing”, but likewise, I don’t see how it’s been demonstrated that it’s moral to live “the examined life”

No, I have. All action is teleologically aimed at the satisfaction of wants, defined as “happiness”. I don’t recall Rand ever saying individuals should live as long as they can or trying to prove such a thing so I am not sure where you get this. The examined life merely pertains to the kind of happiness the being experiences, in accordance to its nature.

Furthermore, what if I lose my memory every hour, why would it be immoral to rob somebody now, such an action would have no impact on my happiness, because in an hour I’ll have completely forgotten about it.

Why would it be moral at the time of your action to do so? That’s when it is important to justify it…

I don’t think you can “regulate” your emotions.

Too bad. You can and do all the time, and you certainly can gradually change your personality over time to deal better with your emotions, whether “biology” agrees or not.

Biology doesn’t think so either,granted, you can claim that to do so would bring you some sort of satisfaction, but I think it’s somewhat obfuscatory to call such satisfaction “happiness” in the usual sense of the word. See, this wasn’t pointed out in TVOS because the assumption there is that man was born as a blank slate, to be molded by his own reason and his environment. But man isn’t a black slate, and contrary to what Rand, Branden and most biologists at the time thought: evolution does matter with regard to human. Emotions didn’t attach themselves to man out of the blue, they’re the result of evolution and they fill our purpose (funnily enough, this purpose is our survival), so you can be sure that the body is not programmed to make emotions easy to shortcut. Which brings me back to my earlier point, if you attempt to do so, you’re going to end up limiting your own ability.

No, you’re not, you’re going to end up removing them as hindrances in cases where they would deter the attainment of your goals, lengthen your time horizons and time preference as it were.

[wilderness]

@Juan

@wilderness

That it is natural for humans to ethically consider.

Yes, humans are, naturally, free moral agents. And again, I wouldn’t say that such key feature of human nature has much to do with biology. Rather the opposite.

Maybe I understand what you mean here. I was saying human nature has to do with biology and ethics, but biology and ethics are distinct fields. Biology meshing with the ethics sometimes comes up in stem-cell research (this doesn’t mean law need apply even though the State likes to intervene and make it a law issue). But I’m definitely not saying I can see the gene of morality.

I think this is what you might be saying, correct?

[marquise]

@wilderness

I’m quite not sure of the difference between a collectivist and a communist unless the former means voluntary and the latter means coercion.

Collectivism is the ideology who puts “the collective” above the individual. It encompasses socialism, nationalism, communism, democracy…

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@JackCuyler

No, I’m really not. The act, “in-and-of-itself” is immoral. What was taken determines the degree of immorality.

Wrong. What was taken determines the degree of restitution.